The stolen 'Cruiser, the insurance company - a fight,,,

Submitted: Tuesday, Apr 04, 2006 at 23:15
ThreadID: 32533 Views:4239 Replies:32 FollowUps:40
This Thread has been Archived
Well, it's begun. My insurance company has wriiten off my stolen 2000 GXL TD Turbo-diesel Landcruier as an "unrecovered total loss".

Today, the first shots were fired in the battle over how much it was worth. Needless to say their version and mine are about $10,000.00 apart!

In November last year it was insured at a "market value" of $47,150.00. I queried this at the time in the quest to get the premuim of around $660.00 reduced. THEY insisted that the vehicle, with all the extras was worth the stated market value "$47,150.00". So I paid my premium for THIER stated price.

Now, 4 months later it's only worth $38,000.00!! When I pointed this out to the Loss Adjuster and told him of my chat with thier "premuims people" last November he said, and I quote: " Oh yes, it seems they made a slight error there and I've just been over to thier section to have a word with them. You see the value of the vehicle has little do with your premium. Its all to do with your age, driving record and previous claims history"

My answer, and I quote again: " And your mistake is my problem is it, even after I pointed it out to you?

He then stated he'd been checking The Red Book and browsing "The Auto Trader" and he could get a 2000 4.5 GXL auto for $30,000.00 and he felt sorry for me so that was why he was offering $38,000.00! $36,000.00 for the car and $2,000.00 for the extras. I told him that MY CAR was GXL turbo diesel manual, which are like hens' teeth and was worth a lot more than petrol Landcruisers that car yards are having trouble shifting.

This car was not some ex-government or mining company hack, neither was it a STD GXL which are comparatively cheap. It was regularly maintained by Genuine Toyota workshops , had done well under normal kilometers, had Toyota Extended Factory Warranty on it up to 175,000 kms, did not have a scratch on it and heap of extras - MOST of which the insurance company was told about. I'm prepared to concede the loss on the items that I didn't tell them about - my fault.

This is gonna end up in court! I've been here before in court battles, represented myself and never lost one yet. Though I've never been in fight with an insurance company, I've taken on the WA Police Force and won, and I've taken on Mining Companies (with 3 solicitors and a barrister on their side) and won!

If they want an argument, they've got one and if they think that Bilbo Baggins rolls over dead, then they've picked the wrong guy!

Comments anyone?

Bilbo :)
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Footloose - Tuesday, Apr 04, 2006 at 23:26

Tuesday, Apr 04, 2006 at 23:26
I know where you are coming from. But the insurance companies probably have a dirtier bag of tricks up their sleeve than mining companies or the police. Remember they have one motto, you pay not us. Character assasination is just the start when they get going. I've never dealt with an insurance company that hasn't been more dishonest than half the prison population when it comes to shelling out.
If you really p them off it may cost you more than its worth. Remember that if they win, you might end up paying their charges as well.
Good Luck!
AnswerID: 164890

Follow Up By: Bilbo - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 00:27

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 00:27
Footy,

In my past jobs as a manager, I had to deal at mangerial level with insurnace companies on asset valuations and Workers Comp Insurance. I've had 2 really bad examples of what insurance companies and my own HR Dept did at the time to one employee after damn near breaking his spine. My own brother is also currently a victim of insurance companies for Worker Comp in similar circumstances. My brother is cripple for life.

"A shower of schit is an understatment" as far as insurance companies are concerned.

I won't be paying thier charges because I won't lose! they've already admitted one error - that's a big start. I know of 2 others. A judge expects a big company to manage its own business in a professional manner. One glimpse of a mistake by the big guy and the whole case goes out the window - the little guy is home free.

Bilbo
0
FollowupID: 419793

Follow Up By: kesh - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 07:46

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 07:46
Bilbo. The way I see it is you entered into a contract (the policy) with company x to insure your property for 12mths. against loss of y $'s.This is a contract, made binding by the payment z premium.Both parties have certain obligations as delineated by the contract (policy).

Claim for loss is made which is accepted by the insurer, so your obligations are satisfied. But a claims assessor says ".... mistake.... have just been over there to have a word....etc. Have also just compared an apple with a couple of oranges, not sure where your's fits in etc., type of thinking."

Well in court thats simply heresay, not admissable evidence. What should be clear to both parties is exactly what the contract document states, that the vehicle described is insured against loss for y $'s. You have the receipted document for an agreed, insured amount. That is evidence.

Obviously you are keeping a complete record of all communication with the insurer and names of their representatives. My experience with court, self represented, (and won) is that facts are all important, no distortions. Somehow though, I dont think it will go that far
kesh

0
FollowupID: 419807

Follow Up By: Rob from Cairns Offroad Training & Tours - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 08:07

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 08:07
I always insure my vehicles for agreed value and pay a little extra premium. At my age and rating #1 for life, insurance is finally affordable. I srongly reccommend to you guys that you always insure your vehicles for agreed value or I guarantee you will get a nasty shock as Bilbo has come settlement time. Cheers, Rob Berrill
www.cairnsoffroad.com.au www.aussieat.com Photo Album aussieat.blogspot.com/

0
FollowupID: 419813

Follow Up By: Member - John R (NSW) - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 09:35

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 09:35
Rob,
I'd even go further and state that the cheapest quote is not necessarily the best.
0
FollowupID: 419836

Follow Up By: Member - Stephen M (NSW) - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 10:53

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 10:53
I'm with Rob there, I always have and always will insure my vehicles for agreed value then you dont have the problems you are facing now. I know some insurance companys will only insure market value on most imported vehicles, eg Toyota 4 runner surfsm, NRMA is one of them. Anyway I hope you go all the way and get the value of the vehicle and all the add ons. I dont think half these mobs no what the value is of all the extra's we and especially yourself add to our vehicles. Good luck keep fighting and get what is wrightfully yours. Regards Steve M
0
FollowupID: 419846

Reply By: Muzzgit (WA) - Tuesday, Apr 04, 2006 at 23:30

Tuesday, Apr 04, 2006 at 23:30
Go for it, is what I say, but that's easy for me coz I'm not the sucker having a barney with an insurance company.

We hear stories of what these mobs get up to all the time, and it is unfortunate that you firstly had the heartache of having your car stolen and now have to bang heads with these guys. Don't forget it's this guys job is to save the company money (read screw you) but I wouldn't be surprised if he backs down when face with a hard nut like youself. (no insult intended)

I hope all ends well for you.

Any hints as to which insurer?

My partner just changed all our insurance over to one mob for everything and saved a heap of bucks, and according to the policies, we are now covered a fair bit more than we used to be. I'm worried that they are jast taking our moolah to make us feel good so they can rodger us when/if we make a claim.

Cheers,

Muzz
AnswerID: 164891

Follow Up By: Bilbo - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 00:32

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 00:32
Muzz git,

" Don't forget it's this guys job is to save the company money (read screw you)",,,,,,,,,even his title of "Loss Adjuster" gives the true perspective of his aim in life.

I know full well what these guys get paid for.

BTW - I will reveal the name of the company in the fullness of time if this gets worse.

I sometimes think that these people don't understand the power of the 'net.

Bilbo

0
FollowupID: 419795

Reply By: Patrolman Pat - Tuesday, Apr 04, 2006 at 23:33

Tuesday, Apr 04, 2006 at 23:33
Stick to your guns. My mate had his daughters car stolen and torched recently. He stuck to his guns and got an extra $5000 over the original offer of $8000.
AnswerID: 164892

Follow Up By: Bilbo - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 00:38

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 00:38
Pat,

Encouraging, thanks mate.

Bilbo
0
FollowupID: 419797

Reply By: V8Diesel - Tuesday, Apr 04, 2006 at 23:37

Tuesday, Apr 04, 2006 at 23:37
Mate I know how you feel. Recently went through a similar nightmare myself.

Keep very calm and prepare as 'watertight' a case as possible before you speak to them again. I had exactly the same thing happen when my 100 was written off (not my fault) and the figure offered was not fair and reasonable in my view. I immediately and firmly declined the initial verbal offer as unsatisfactory and unacceptable. I then kept quiet whilst I assembled a file of factual information backing up my argument which included photos, newspaper advertisements and a complete itemised list of all accessories fitted with part numbers and replacement costs. Only deal with facts and avoid second or third hand opinions etc.

I met the assessor on site and politely took him through each and every mod and good point of this vehicle which placed it above the run of the mill ex-miner.

Ended up with roughly $6,000 over and above the initial offer. Well worth the effort.

I'd say their failure to differentiate between market value on a TD and the 4.5 petrol would be grounds to speak to someone higher up the food chain too. Clearly no idea.

Most things are negotiable. Good luck!
AnswerID: 164893

Follow Up By: Bilbo - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 00:42

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 00:42
V8,

A good plan. Logical and sound and incidentally, a big part of my plan.

The second part of my plan is, as Shuzn Tzu says in his instructional book "The Art of War" - "First, know your enemy".

I don't think the Loss Adjuster knows his,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and I won't tell him eh??

Bilbo

0
FollowupID: 419798

Reply By: Rock Crawler - Tuesday, Apr 04, 2006 at 23:58

Tuesday, Apr 04, 2006 at 23:58
Dont want to upset you , but if your getting 36 for 2000 GXL TD with 170kms , I would be wrapped
AnswerID: 164895

Follow Up By: Bilbo - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 00:17

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 00:17
Rocky,

Who said it had done 170,000 kms?

I said it had a Toyota Factory Warranty on it up to 175,00 kms. That warranty had 75,000 kms left on it. My truck had done just on 100,00 kms. It had it's 100,000 service about 10 days before it was nicked.

So it's an immaculately maintained 6 year old vehicle that's done well under normal mileage at 100,000 kms.

The extras were listed in my original post about the theft - about 3 weeks ago. But I'll ist 'em again if ya like.

"Wrapped" I'm not. Disguted I am ( to quote Joda)

Bilbo
0
FollowupID: 419790

Follow Up By: Rock Crawler - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 00:24

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 00:24
well best of luck mate , but you always know not to accept first offer lol .

Did you insure for agreed value or market ?
0
FollowupID: 419792

Follow Up By: Bilbo - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 00:36

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 00:36
Rocky,

It was insured for "Market Value plus extras".

But,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,define "Market Value" ;)

Like your motto says, Rocky - "Go hard or go home" ;)

I will.

Bilbo
0
FollowupID: 419796

Follow Up By: Rock Crawler - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 07:25

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 07:25
Well , then there entitled to give you red book price . The only hope you have , is to get quotes from car yards about replacement cost and go to court with the argument of I need x amount to replace my vehicle. If they hit you with the red book price , tell them that you cant drive the red book home. If they tell you that priv sales determine the market price , then hit them with the , they are untested vehicles and you cant define them as market price .
0
FollowupID: 419804

Follow Up By: Bilbo - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 15:15

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 15:15
Rocky, Red Book prices are based on Private Sales. Private Sales are always chaeper than recognised dealers, patricularly main dealers with a reputaion and a warranty to uphold.

My insurance company's defintion of "Markey Value" is , and I quote from the policy:

"marekt value " means the replacement cost of your vehicle taking into account your vehicle's condition. To assist in dtermining the market value we may alos use "The Red BooK" price guide, "Glass's Dealer Guide or other available information"

I defy anyone to go out & get me a similar vehcle to mine in a similar "good condtion" (as defined by my insurance company) for $38,000.00.

See my reply above about defintions of "vehicle condition".

Bilbo

0
FollowupID: 419882

Reply By: Tim HJ61 (WA) - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 00:45

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 00:45
Keep detailed notes without becoming paranoid.
Let them know in writing you are unsatisfied with the assessment and as others have stated, make a list of how they stuffed up.
Ask the loss adjustors manager for a new assessor, one that actually knows the difference in vehicles, and can communicate with you in a professional way not a condescending sod who's just come from a dodgy used car lot.
Ask the company what their internal complaint resolution process is and use it.
Ask the company what the process is you go through if you are unsatisfied with their internal complaints process - there may be some industry ombudsmen - and use it.
You can do a lot without going to court - but you know that.
And do all of this whilst maintainng your sanity and not getting paranoid.
and finally
Don't let it detract from the enjoyment of setting up your new replacement vehicle.

All the best
Tim
AnswerID: 164902

Follow Up By: BenSpoon - Thursday, Apr 06, 2006 at 13:17

Thursday, Apr 06, 2006 at 13:17
True that.
Try and keep dates, names and times. If needed you can request a copy of all your personal records from the insurance company (they are required by the privacy act to give it to you) and this may help you out if you didnt record this info in the past.

Dispute resolution is generally in the back of your policy book, and generally has about 5 steps of 2-7 days each before you can go to the Insurance industry ombudsman. Check out their website FAQs- may be helpful if you arent already up to speed on it. If you do manage to get it escalated, make sure you remind the company of the fact you will make it as public as possible as that is all they really seem to car about, not whether you are happy or not.
0
FollowupID: 420089

Reply By: crfan - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 02:38

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 02:38
Hi Bilbo.
Not a nice story ,Know how you feel though, had my work shop broken into an lost a lot of stuff lucky I had top cover and got a good replacement for most my stuff but still dont have (MY STUFF) and a still find stuff that is missing.
Ask the Insurance Adjuster to find a 100 series GXL Turbo Diesel with the extras you had fitted for $38,000 and I will buy it .
Crfan
AnswerID: 164904

Reply By: Member - Troll 81 (QLD) - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 04:51

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 04:51
Hi Bilbo

Good luck with it all. What company are we talking about here?
AnswerID: 164906

Reply By: Qlddisco - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 05:22

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 05:22
be real careful with what u said about revealing the companys name if thing get worse ! dont want them coming back on u with some sort of law suit for slanddering them mate !! all the best with things anyway and hope ya get the $$ u deserve
AnswerID: 164907

Reply By: brian - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 06:28

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 06:28
Bilbo,this reply wont be popular but...from your post you were chasing a cheaper quoted price for the insurace offered,you chose MARKET value not AGREED value to save money...thats all.You got what you paid for.
However what is the true MARKET value i dont know it will i suspect be determined by an independant authority.
If you are as conversant with the legal system as you say you made an informed decision at the time,you wanted to save money.now go and put some effort in to prove the real value stop winging about the type of insurance YOU chose.
AnswerID: 164909

Follow Up By: age - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 06:59

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 06:59
First said I hate thieves and the havoc they cause and heart goes out to Bilbo, but, agree with you here Brian - got what was paid for. The vehicle is hardly new at 6 years old with 100K on the clock. Insurance company are offering generous Redbook prices. Vehicle is not that rare - ex Govt lease Turbo 100's going for sale here in Bris 2/3 years old with 40000km for mid-high $30K mark. Extra Care warranty whilst piece of mind for owner is nothing more than a $1000 mechanical insurance policy and has no tangible value against the asset.

Age
0
FollowupID: 419801

Follow Up By: The Bigfella - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 08:00

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 08:00
I must agree. I don't wish this guy any loss at all but I would NEVER insure a vehicle for "Market" value. Always insist on an "Agreed" value. Might cost a few dollars extra but sure is good to know what you will get paid if things like this happen.
I hope it all works out OK but insurance companies are a world of their own.

Had a recent case where I backed in to one of my roller doors. The insurance company paid for the new door OK but I wanted it to match the other existing door as well. (I have a double garage). They would NOT pay the extra $485 for another roller doller to match but were more than willing to fork out $785 to have both the new door and old door re-painted. Now that is REAL logic. No wonder our premiums are high.
Cheers
The Bigfella
0
FollowupID: 419811

Follow Up By: Bilbo - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 15:05

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 15:05
Brian and others,

I've been with this same company for about 20 to 25 years. I will type out here EXACTLY what it says on the policy and I have used the insurance companes defintions of "Vehicle Condition".

The policy says:

"Sum Insured: Market Value. As a helpful guide based on your vehicle being in good condition the market value of vehicle today would be $47,150.00. Please note that your vehicles value will depreciate over time. (refer to definitions section in your policy for the defintions of "markey value" and "your vehicles condition")

I can add my insurance copmanies definition of "Average", "Good" and "Excellent" conditions if you wish. But by using thier criteria and not my emotions, the vehicle surpasses the "Good" requirement and almost meets their standard of "Excellent". This is using their criteria not something I made up.

Now these words are the words of my insurance company last year in Novermeber 2005. I queried what they said prior to paying the premium and was told that the vehicle as I'd disclosed to them was worth that much as market value. So they could not reduce the premium.Those were their words not mine. They chose the value not me! I paid my premium based on thier recommendation, not what I thought it was worth. If the vehicle is now worth only $38,000.00, 3 months after paying the premuim then that is misrepresentation. They are now trying to tell me that the vehicle is only worth $38,000.00 - 3 months after it was valued, by them - at $47,150.00. If the vehicle depreciated that much in 3 months from November 2005 and 10/3/06, that's an annual depreciation rate of 58.2%. If taken to the next insurance renewal due in November 2006, the vehicle, according to them at that rate of depreciation would be worth only $22,632.00. Not bad for a GXL TD Landcruiser with what would be about 125,000 kms on the clock.

Previous annual depreciation rates on previous renewals for this car for the past 3 renewals have been 2.71%, 14.9%. Now they expect me to accept a 58.3% depreciation rate.

They valued it - not me! Yes I sought a reduction and no, they wouldn't reduce it. Bearing in mind what's transpired, I'd say that almost fraud.

Bilbo

0
FollowupID: 419876

Follow Up By: Bilbo - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 15:08

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 15:08
Make that 2nd "58.3%" = "58.2%".

A finger problem. I'm a bit wound up right now ;)

Bilbo
0
FollowupID: 419878

Follow Up By: Bilbo - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 15:30

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 15:30
Age,

Your comment "Extra Care warranty whilst piece of mind for owner is nothing more than a $1000 mechanical insurance policy and has no tangible value against the asset."

I think you've missed a vital point.

By purchasing an Extra Care Warranty the owner of the vehicle is exemplifying his commitment to ensuring the vehicle is maintained in A1 condition by qualified service people. Not backyard oil changes! The owner is making a finanacial commtiment to ensure his vehicle remains in good condition for years to come.

That is an indicator that this vehicle was in "Good" condition as defined by my insurance company

Bilbo.
0
FollowupID: 419889

Follow Up By: age - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 20:17

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 20:17
Bilbo without sidetracking the thread I do not believe I have missed a vital point. A six year old dealer serviced Landcruiser is worth the same value as a six year old dealer serviced one with Extra Care (especially in 2 years time when your extra care is over). No insurance company will cover another insurance policy (which extra care is) which is designed to minimise Toyota's potential loss if something goes wrong within the extra care period. It is simply valueless against the asset in this situation. It is like me taking out a separate house contents insurance policy on items like an outdoor bbq or other removable items that compliment the house then asking a prospective buyer to pay more for the house because I have x $'s worth of insurance against items I will remove when I sell the house
0
FollowupID: 419956

Follow Up By: Trevor R (QLD) - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 21:15

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 21:15
Age,

Toyota's extra care warranty (the gold one like Bilbo's) is a saleable item as it is transferable to the next owner of that vehicle. And you can't tell me that if you had the choice of 2 identical vehicles (one with Toyota warranty and one without) for the same price you wouldn't choose the one with warranty. Thereby proving there is a value on a warranty. But how much value it is worth is the grey area.

Trevor.
0
FollowupID: 419962

Reply By: Member - Ivan (ACT) - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 06:32

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 06:32
Mate,

Hope you do well - I had my 2002 petrol Prado (115k) written off in Oct last year - it was insured for market value plus 'extras' - I did have all the extras listed on the policy - they assessed it as a write off promptly, and paid very quickly - $44.5

This was AAMI - I have nothing but good words for them.
Cheers,

Ivan
2008 D4D Prado

Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 164910

Reply By: Kiwi Kia - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 07:13

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 07:13
Best of Luck, you sound like you are onto it as regards dealing with thease guys. I have found that it's always good to keep very accurate records, don't piss anyone off and def. don't tell them everything you know. If you can pull a rabbit out of the hat infront of a referee (judge-whatever), even better if its on their letterhead, it makes the otherside look like you know what.
AnswerID: 164913

Reply By: Member - Oldplodder (QLD) - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 07:56

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 07:56
I would reply in writing to the assessor confirming his offer and your denial.
That 38,000 figure may change in future, - from memory.

Yes, personal experience, those insurance poeple like to haggle right up the court steps, and into court. Not cars, but did settle one claim on the steps of court, and saved the court costs.

Cool head required, which it seems you have, and be prepared to haggle.
AnswerID: 164924

Reply By: Richard - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 08:12

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 08:12
Having worked for an insurance company , don't hold that against me, and now retired it's up to you to prove the vehicles market value which as has been stated is open to wide interpretation. Auction is the best determinant of market value but may not help your cause. I'd be looking at auction sites and 2nd hand vehicle classifides to get some amo.

I've got my TD100 insured for agreed value.
AnswerID: 164927

Reply By: Member - Doug T (QLD) - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 08:12

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 08:12
Hi Bilbo
Just found this on the Brisbane Courier Mail site,Yours could easily have ended up over this side of the country,
Ohh yeh as usual though they will only get a little rap on the knuckles

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLICE have seized 17 stolen cars and one caravan on Brisbane's northside this week as part of an operation targeting crime gangs.

All the stolen vehicles had been altered to prepare them for sale on the black market.

Detectives have warned thieves who rebirth stolen vehicles that the raids are not over yet.

"We have detained six people so far but intend on conducting more raids," said Detective Inspector Richard Nikola, who heads the operation.

"So far we have raided 14 addresses on Brisbane's northside."

Codenamed Echo Panel, the operation is focused on catching dodgy backyard mechanics and panel beaters who are hired to modify stolen vehicles and ready them for sale, erasing identifying features.

Insp Nikola said the crime gang was a fairly elaborate organisation with links interstate.

Along with the stolen vehicles, police also found stolen number plates and car parts as well as cash and drugs.

While police want to return the cars to their rightful owners, it is going to be difficult as many of the vehicles look very different.

"We are optimistic of finding the rightful owners but in the event that they have new cars, then I'm sure insurance companies would be interested," Insp Nikola said.

Vehicle rebirthing is a growing problem.

Insp Nikola said people should be very wary when buying a car, especially older models.

It is very hard to detect whether a car has been stolen as thieves are constantly learning new ways to change vehicles.

Police recommend having an RACQ check before purchase.

Meanwhile, police have charged four people in relation to an alleged incident during which entry was gained to a car-holding yard at Eagle Farm on Brisbane's northside on Monday.

A 23-year-old South Brisbane man, a 17-year-old Taringa man, an 18-year-old Newstead man and another 18-year-old man from Kingston have been charged with unlawful use of motor vehicles, wilful damage and attempted unlawful use of motor vehicles.

All are expected to appear in Sandgate Magistrate's Court on April 19.
gift by Daughter

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

AnswerID: 164928

Reply By: Member - Coyote (SA) - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 08:20

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 08:20
I'm not going to get into backyard courtroom discussions, but I wil wish you all the best.. they agreed on the value and unless they tod you otherwise then that is the agreed/market value.. so go for it.. I wish you all the best
AnswerID: 164930

Reply By: Turbo Diesel - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 08:25

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 08:25
Bilbo

I have not read all the post above, so here goes, "take it to them mate" you are well with in your rights. From memory there is a tribunal or helpline service that you can call, like an arbitrator that will help sought this mess out. They will try all their tricks but stick it to them, take them to court but get all the facts first. Hope all goes well.

Turbo

Ps

Fancy saying a petrol 4.5 can be compared to a TD4.2 what an complete and utter .........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AnswerID: 164931

Reply By: V8Diesel - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 08:53

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 08:53
Another thing, document and diarise ALL conversations, phone calls, emails etc. Leave nothing to memory, write it all down straight away and use the 24hr clock to the minute.

Any embellishment, fudged information or uncertainty of the facts will blow your credibility and sink your case.
AnswerID: 164937

Reply By: Steve - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 09:35

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 09:35
On the one hand, I presume your copy of the policy states a market value of $47,150.00 and you have paid premiums accordingly.

Against this, the red Book, for instance, (if I've got the model right) values it at $38,000 max.

If you agreed an insured sum of $47,150.00, then surely that should've been an "agreed" value not a "market" value. This is where the conflict lies. It seems you've reached an agreed value yet settled the premium at market value. Does that conflict show on your policy? ie: does it say insured for a "market" value of $47,150.00??? If your premiums have been based on the higher figure then the courts would have to decide in your favour. I think you need to establish that fact.
AnswerID: 164944

Follow Up By: Bilbo - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 15:19

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 15:19
Steve,

My policy says "market value of $47,150.00". See my reply above about this - answer was to "Brian" I think.

Bilbo
0
FollowupID: 419883

Follow Up By: Steve - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 18:34

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 18:34
If they accepted the $47000 figure as Market value only 4 months ago, then there was negligence on their part because according to what I can see on the Red Book site (assuming I've got the model right) it wouldn't've had a Market value of $47000 then. (it wouldn't do any harm for you to find out what market value was at the time you took the policy out) They've got their wires crossed in giving you an agreed valuation and charging you premiums accordingly, (???) but calling it Market value and then expecting to pay out at market value when the payout came along. I don't know how the letter of the law will favour you (or not) but from a neutral point of view it seems like both parties are trying to get the best of both worlds. They say they insure you at the amount you want but also call it Market value. You, on the other hand want to insure the car for 47000 but want to call it (or have accepted the term) Market value. Bit of a mess. The key seems to be if a court would find the "sum insured" or the term "Market value" as the deciding factor. Good luck anyhow, mate.
0
FollowupID: 419929

Reply By: Trevor R (QLD) - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 10:33

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 10:33
Bilbo,

go to tandy's or dick smith's and get yourself a dictaphone that can tape phone calls (very common item) and tape every phone call with the insurer. These phone calls will not necessarily be able to be used in a courtroom but they wiil be able to verify any conflict in verbal discussions between you and the insurer. If they are unaware that you have been taping them all along and you disclose this at the right time to the insurer, I feel confident you will quickly get an out of court settlement.

I wish you well and hope it works out for you. You don't need the extra heartache involved in courtroom battles.

Cheers Trevor.
AnswerID: 164953

Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 23:08

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 23:08
. . also a quicker way to get into court as the defendant. Taping phone calls is illegal without informing the other party.

Mike
0
FollowupID: 419996

Follow Up By: Trevor R (QLD) - Thursday, Apr 06, 2006 at 08:26

Thursday, Apr 06, 2006 at 08:26
Mike, You are probably aware that when you call the insurance company their disclaimer on the start of the call will tell you this call may be recorded for training purposes blah blah blah. Well that message gives you the right to do just that RECORD.
Also if you do not distribute the tape then the insurance company (or whoever you tape) does not have a leg to stand on if they take you to court anyway...where's the alleged tape?????
Use the tape to clarify what has been said by whom and on what dates. Much more reliable than hand written messages.

Regards Trevor.
0
FollowupID: 420024

Reply By: TerraFirma - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 11:41

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 11:41
You should also consider speaking to a radio station and posting the name of the insurance company in these forums. They "might" fear any negative publicity you can generate against them. I would stand your ground and fight them in court, they may back down at the last minute and try and settle before then. I had a custom FJ40 stolen that had cost me $30k and got $13k for it and at the same time they accused me of stealing it. My brother was running the stolen car sqaud at the time and he rang them and blasted them, they changed their tune later. I hate insurance companies with a passion. This year I changed my insurance company for all my 4 vehicles to Ozicare (www.ozicare.com.au) and saved 40-50% on all my premiums. I have a new Hilux SR5 TD Auto worth close to $60k insured for $380 a year.

P.S. I'm not selling insurance (LOL) just advocating some low premiums..!
AnswerID: 164969

Reply By: Truckster (Vic) - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 11:44

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 11:44
Why are you suprised they want to ream you? Thats their business.
AnswerID: 164971

Follow Up By: Wombat - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 11:50

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 11:50
On the ladder of humanity they sit just beneath real estate agents and stagnant pond scum.
0
FollowupID: 419856

Follow Up By: Member - Zach S (SA) - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 13:41

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 13:41
wambat,
as someone who works for an insurance company I do get sick of the generalisations, out of the 1000's of claims paid each day 99.99% im sure are very satisfied customers, I do admit that there are cowboys out there, as with any industry but not all. when I first started in the industry I spent a short time in claims and the two things I was tought was "a good claims officer looks for a way to pay the claim under the policy, not decline it" and "your going to pay anyway, may as well do it with a smile".

bilbo sounds like he is on the write track, I don't know what a 2000 td is worth, but if what he has been offered is light on then he should do what he is doing, document everything, gather his evidence and submit it too them.

bilbo, good luck with the claim, I hope it all works out

0
FollowupID: 419869

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 15:08

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 15:08
>>> "a good claims officer looks for a way to pay the claim under the policy, not decline it"

Sorry dude, but this smells like
bleep .jpg" height=233 width= 347>

>>> and "your going to pay anyway, may as well do it with a smile".
see above.
0
FollowupID: 419877

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 15:13

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 15:13
oops it didnt like s hi t


0
FollowupID: 419879

Follow Up By: gramps - Saturday, Apr 08, 2006 at 04:08

Saturday, Apr 08, 2006 at 04:08
"On the ladder of humanity they sit just beneath real estate agents and stagnant pond scum"

hahahahahahaha Wombat, you forgot used car salesmen, politicians and the whole legal profession LOLOLOL

0
FollowupID: 420626

Reply By: DARREN - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 12:45

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 12:45
Bilbo, I am currently assisting a mate with a similar problem, there are quite a few issues here but here are a couple of suggestions.

Firstly review the policy document and terms of settlement.

Secondly if their offer is inadequate, gather you own independent evidence of "market" or whatever other value the policy document says they will settle based upon, to assist in supporting your argument (which will be used for the later steps below).

Review the policy document for dispute resolution procedure if necessary...............
then..................... if no joy after going through that process (which will not be suprising) go to www.iecltd.com.au which provides for an independent review of both sides, this is where if you have lots of supprting documentation the odds will be more in your favour.

Good luck

Darren
AnswerID: 164984

Reply By: Member - Davoe (Widgiemooltha) - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 13:29

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 13:29
Sure its just nothing more than them trying it on before coming up with a more reasnable price? I mean comparing a factory TD to a 4.5 sounds like them hoping you are stupid. I reckon when they realize you are not they will come to the party although I would be suprised if you get full value
AnswerID: 164992

Follow Up By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 17:36

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 17:36
Whilst on the insurance subject,from experiance. If you have insurance for lets say $20,000 tools etc in a workshop you get broken in to and $15,000 equipment stolen. You put in a claim and all is verified and you get paid out sounds great as you paid your premium two months before. But alas three months later it happens again an this time mongerals steel $20.000 worth of equipment you claim again as your policy is only paid six months ago. WRONG they will only pay the $5,000 balance of your policy,unless you repay the premium after the initial breakin. My beef with the insurance companys they DONT inform people of this fact but will freely tell you if you ask.How many people have been caught with this wilful deception. So please if it happens to anyone ask the question of the particular insurance c/o.

Free advice BILLS
0
FollowupID: 419908

Follow Up By: BenSpoon - Thursday, Apr 06, 2006 at 13:02

Thursday, Apr 06, 2006 at 13:02
"My beef with the insurance companys they DONT inform people of this fact but will freely tell you if you ask." Thats wrong.
They cannot change policies mid term unless they advise you. That is law. They give you a product statement when you sign up, or else you are covered by standard cover (chapter 20)
If you do what a healthy 1% of australians do- READ THE POLICY BOOK you will see what you are covered for. You pay for cover for the policy duration to the value you agree on, you cant get more than that. If its a total loss, the policy is cancelled with no refund. Insurance companies are businesses, not charities.

I've never ever ever seen a person happy with a payout figure with a market value policy. Bilbo- sorry for your loss, I reckon you'll be sticking with Agreed value after this one eh?
0
FollowupID: 420083

Reply By: greenant - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 17:18

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 17:18
Bilbo

All you have to do is appoint your own motort vehicle valuer, here in qld they are registered just like house and land valuers and get them to give you a report on what there valuation $$ of the car would be with all the information supplied by you pertaining to extras on the car etc end of story as they are a recognised professional ask the assessor what his qualifications are ??? on valuing vehicles probably nil most assessors expertise is on repairing vehicles

Greenant
AnswerID: 165031

Follow Up By: Shaker - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 23:41

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 23:41
He can't value what he can't see, no matter how qualified he is.
0
FollowupID: 420003

Reply By: 100 Series - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 18:49

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 18:49
I appointed an indepandant vehicle valuer in QLD a few years ago when the MRS wrote her Barina off. The insurance company offered 9K and I was not happy with that, so I got the valuer in, paid them about $250, they valued the vehicle at 12k. This was submitted to the insurer and they paid the 12k in full less the excess.

The valuer went on sight and inspected the vehicle assumming it was in an undamaged state and submitted his report to the insurer. Since you don't have the vehicle you will need to supply a heap of photos and specify all the particulars of the vehicle i.e make, model, extras, mileage, obtain yor service history from toyota and supply reciepts for this, have the service manager or any other person who used to service it fill out a staturtory declaration stating the condition and any other supporting documentation.

Good luck
AnswerID: 165050

Reply By: brian - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 20:47

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 20:47
Bilbo is the figure of $47150 clearly written on your policy??? if it is could you post the paragraph around this figure so we can see the context in which the figure applies.
AnswerID: 165085

Follow Up By: geocacher (djcache) - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 22:35

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 22:35
He has. Try FollowupID: 419876

Dave
0
FollowupID: 419985

Follow Up By: Bilbo - Thursday, Apr 06, 2006 at 00:01

Thursday, Apr 06, 2006 at 00:01
As Geocacher said, it's written above - verbatim. However, I've done a scan of that part of the policy and I'll post it here. I just hope the pic is big enough to read the text.

I've deliberately ommitted the insurers name.

Bilbo!MPG:6!
0
FollowupID: 420004

Follow Up By: Bilbo - Thursday, Apr 06, 2006 at 00:10

Thursday, Apr 06, 2006 at 00:10
Nah - didn't work, too small.

Sorry guys.

Bilbo
0
FollowupID: 420006

Reply By: geocacher (djcache) - Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 22:40

Wednesday, Apr 05, 2006 at 22:40
Hi Bilbo,

If your insurer is a member of the Insurance Council of Australia they will get involved as mediator.

Got me $2000 more on my wifes $14500 Corolla a few years ago now.

We bought it for $12500 but it was valued at $14500. (Market Value)

It was written it off two weeks later and they said we're not paying more than $12500 less the excess. That's all you paid for it two weeks ago.

I suggested that the replacement value was higher which it was (a mate at a Toyota dealer did us a big favour to get that one in the first place). I also suggested that had I won it in a raffle for $2 a ticket I couldn't replace it for $2 either.

Anyway the long and the short of it was that when the IC of A got involved and dealt a few rungs up the food chain above those which I could access they paid the full amount less the excess.

Dave

AnswerID: 165117

Reply By: brian - Thursday, Apr 06, 2006 at 10:33

Thursday, Apr 06, 2006 at 10:33
Bilbo i wish you success with your claim,however your policy states approx market value of $47150 TODAY.This is not agreed value,they would have an argument to pay less than $47150 the only question is what is the correct market value at the time of loss?????????
In the info you have supplied so far there is no representation by the insurer that the value was specified as $47150 it only says APPROXIMATELY
Good luck let us know how you go.
AnswerID: 165205

Reply By: Bilbo - Thursday, Apr 06, 2006 at 13:47

Thursday, Apr 06, 2006 at 13:47
Ok - the saga continues, the story so far,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Day one - offer? $38,000.00 all in. $36,000.00 for the car and $2,000.00 for the extras.

They were told to stick it.

Day two - offer? $39,000.00. Still $2,00.00 fer the extras and now $37,000.00 fer the car.

They were told to stick it even further till their eyes watered,,,,

Day three = offer $42,000.00 all up including the extras. This is their "Final Offer" and I've asked for it in writing. We're now getting close to a 'ball park' figure I reckon.

Note - this third offer was made after "extensvive research" by my insurance company of the Perth used car market in Toyota 100 series Turbo Diesels with manual gearbox". Dealers have said to my insurance company that these cars are like hen's teeth, everybody wants 'em, they're sold within days of being on the lot and the absolute minimum price for one in good condition is $40,000.00, the average selling price obtained by dealers is $43,000.00.

I can concur with the above remarks 'cos it took me 4 months to find mine in Perth before I bought it.

I'm thinikng about the new offer 0f $42,000.00,,,,,,,,,,

And all you doomsayers can just go and,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,well let's put it another way, if you accept what the systems dishes out then you deserve what ya get.

Bilbo

AnswerID: 165264

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Thursday, Apr 06, 2006 at 14:03

Thursday, Apr 06, 2006 at 14:03
and how many THOUSANDS are you out of pocket still?

I'd be callling everyone before I accepted anything. Once you have it in writing your covered - take your time.

IMHO I wouldnt accept it. Insurance companies TAKE THE RISK. thats their business.

FWIW, go agreed not market EVERYtime.
0
FollowupID: 420100

Reply By: Bilbo - Thursday, Apr 06, 2006 at 16:32

Thursday, Apr 06, 2006 at 16:32
Truckster,

I'm still about $5,000.00 out of pocket on what the vehicle cost after it was 100% finished. That's my own fault. The roof rack, solar panels and drawer system had been fitted only about 2 weeks before it was stolen. We just didn't get around to informing the insurance company - you know how these things can get away from ya. We meabt to, but we didn't. So I'll have to cop that as they won't cover these items unless they were declared. Although, their policy is a bit ambiguous on this point and I might purse the roof rack issue.

What they have now told me is that any of the extras that I had fitted by the dealer at time of purchase 2 and a half years ago - caravan braking, cruise control, Kaymar wheel carrier, electronic rust prevention, paint pack protection, snorkel, etc - they will not pay for as they have no record of them being told about them. Now that vehicle was bought using a Salary Sacrifice deal with my then employer through SMB Novalease. SMB insisted that I insure the lot as they technically still onwed the car.

I distiinctly remember the phone call telling my insurance company about everything had been put on it. Now the insurance company denies that they have ever been informed of these items or the phone call. I definitely told their "quotes people" about these items - why wouldn't I? - and was informed that such things are normal on a vehicle such as this and there's no need to specify them on the policy !!!!

I took that as gospel. Silly me.

However, I've found that successive policies have noted that a "cruise control" was fitted - these words, "cruise control" were typed out twice, repeated, in the little box titled "Non-Standard Acessories and Modifications", which shows a lack of correct data recording. But I ask myself that if they made a note of this item, then why didn't they make a note of everything. I would have no reason whatsoever not to tell them about all the other stuff.

They've changed their tune about the extras now. Instead of offering me $40,000.00 plus $2,000.00 for these extras (as in previous offers) they are now saying that as they have no record of these extras that the $42,000.00 they have now offered does not include the extras!! It's now $42,000.00 for just the car. This is a complete turnaround. Bloody ridiculuous!!

They also told me that if it goes to independent valuation ( bit like trying to find an independent lawyer or doctor, an oxymoron in fact) then I would have no further redress. I would have to accept the value placed on the car by the indepedent valuer. This is incorrect. I have access to the Insurance Ombudsman and Consumer Affairs and you can never in any contract whatsoever, in Australia, sign away your legal rights. You cannot "contract your way out of the law". So again this issue of "sharp practice" is apparent, if not outright lies, misrepresentation and threats.

I can see "Consumer Affairs" in the distance, followed by the Insurance Ombudsman,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I thought retirement was supposed to be QUIET!!

But my youngest son (29 years old) has me absolutely weighed up. He said to me "Dad, you're enjoying this aren't ya, you get off on challenging the system dontcha?"

Guess what - he's right! I hate mongrels such as these and Australia is full of 'em right now.

Thanks for your support guys.

Bilbo
AnswerID: 165308

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Friday, Apr 07, 2006 at 13:46

Friday, Apr 07, 2006 at 13:46
>>> Now the insurance company denies that they have ever been informed of these items or the phone call.

But... >>> "a good claims officer looks for a way to pay the claim under the policy, not decline it"
0
FollowupID: 420442

Follow Up By: Bilbo - Saturday, Apr 08, 2006 at 03:15

Saturday, Apr 08, 2006 at 03:15
Truckster,

Yeah I saw that written by Zach S above and at first I didn't fully understand it. But it's been on my mind since Zach wrote it. It was the "not decline it" bit that didn't really gel.

But I can see what Zach is getting at. The HAVE to pay out so why not try and pay out as little as possible.

I already knew this, but the way Zach put it did have me thinking fer a while.

I'm now waiting for their latest offering - in writing. That's when the real schit fight will start I reckon.

My V8 Chevy patrol arrived today, so I'm a bit happier. Plus, it puts me in something of a "box seat". I have a good vehicle, I have transport, I can get out bush, etc. So the insurance can wait. I've got time. There's a hole in my bank book sure, but it's a hole that'll be filled on my terms not theirs. I'm not stuck for the money - which is another weapon that they use against ya. But they already know they're wasting their time, as they are aware that I've already bought the Chev Nissan. I have a cover note from 'em.

Thanks, Truckster

Bilbo
0
FollowupID: 420621

Reply By: rod2101 - Friday, Apr 07, 2006 at 11:20

Friday, Apr 07, 2006 at 11:20
Get a Cover note and see what value they put the car at ! That value is current !
( I guess it will be about 47k )

Regards Rod
AnswerID: 165542

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Friday, Apr 07, 2006 at 13:59

Friday, Apr 07, 2006 at 13:59
That is way too logical!

Pretend to be someone else, ring up and insure your "new rig" with all accessories...
get them to post you that quote, then bend them over for a change with no KY
0
FollowupID: 420447

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)